11 posts from January 2017

January 30, 2017

When is a reduced charge a rip-off?...... When it’s a ‘cut’ in Severn Bridge tolls. Three grinning Tories lined up for a picture with the Severn Bridges in the background. They spin the myth that they are kindly reducing the 52 year highway robbery of double taxation. No. The bridges will be owned by us at the end of the year. They will be part of the UK highway system that we all pay for through our taxes. Tolls on top of that is paying twice. Tories argue that we should pay the running costs and debts on the bridge. Why? They would be covered by a toll of £1. Those costs should be part of the national roads bill. With brazen effrontery, they are proposing a £3 charge which is a new tax invented by toll junkies to milk the bridges cash cow. My colleague Jessica Morden will lead a debate on tolls tomorrow. The truth will out. Tory grins will fade.

All Gwent MPs disagree with their constituents’ vote on Brexit-including Brexiteer Conservative David Davies’ Monmouth constituents who voted to remain. Nobody knows where the Brexit leap in the dark will land us. It could be in a hellhole of deepening unemployment and poverty. To refuse to start the process would be anti-democratic and deepen cynicism against politics. No Gwent MP will do that. But Labour MPs will be vigilant when the truth on Brexit emerges. We will not support any Brexit that wrecks the Gwent economy. We will fight for the best deal for Gwent.

If our neglected manufacturing industry is to be recreated, it must be constructed on foundations of steel. The Welsh Select Committee will be taking evidence on February 6thin Newport on the promising renaissance of Newport steel jobs led by Liberty House. It could be good news for jobs and renewable tidal power.

In England farmers get vast EU handouts for owning land. In Wales it’s small subsidies for producing food. Three rich English aristocrats, the Royal family and the Mormon Church get income support of more than £500,000 each in subsidies. Welsh famers get an average of £13,000. Brexit allows us to think again on the £3 billion EU giveaway. Why not set a maximum for farm hand-outs and redistribute the cash to the NHS, manufacturing industry and small farmers in genuine need? Welsh priorities for Welsh problems.

January 27, 2017

To my astonishment, I find myself excluded from my favourite habitat, the Commons chamber. It was not planned. The mini-drama evolved. The pressures of outrage and injustice inexorably clashed with the rigidity of parliamentary discipline.

Since I became an MP 25 years ago, I have deployed the forces of doublespeak, mealy-mouthed platitudes and cowardice to avoid confrontations with the Speaker. Earlier this year I gave advice to new members on this subject in my new book How To Be an MP. Following advice, however, has proved to be trickier that giving it.Expulsion from the Commons is now almost always contrived. Once, it made headlines and could be damaging to individual MPs. Now it is used only to make a strong point.

In 2009, John McDonnell was suspended from the Commons for five days for seizing the mace and placing it on the Labour benches. He said: "My job is to represent my constituents. Today I was reasserting the values of democracy and the overriding sovereignty of parliament." He was protesting against the expansion of Heathrow. The ceremonial mace rests on the table in front of the Speaker when the Commons is sitting and is a symbol of its authority, technically delegated from the crown.

Defying the Speaker is itself an ancient noble tradition. Since 1949, 28 MPs have been suspended from the house for failing to obey orders. Perhaps the most unjust expulsion was that of Dale Campbell-Savours, who branded Jeffrey Archer "a criminal" in 1995 over the Anglia TV shares affair. Refusing to retract, the Labour MP said: "I believe it is criminal activity and I will leave." Campbell-Savours, who was made a peer in 2001, is probably the current record expellee with around a dozen exclusions. He used expulsion as a ploy, as did Tam Dalyell. He is convinced that it did him no electoral damage and was helpful in highlighting important issues.

So frequently was exclusion used in the 1990s, it lost its force. The media generally remain unimpressed. There are consequences beyond the five days' suspension and loss of pay. Antagonising a Speaker is a kamikaze ploy. Backbenchers can swiftly become invisible, ignored in debates and passed over by the Speaker for opportunist questions.

McDonnell's mace-wielding battlecry was well rehearsed and carefully manicured. I should have followed his example. My explosion of rage was the culmination of seven days of hot churning emotion. The defence secretary, Philip Hammond, brought it the boil by a despicable justification for war without end. "Four hundred and thirty British service personnel have given their lives, and we intend to protect that legacy by ensuring that the UK's national security interests are protected in future by training and mentoring the Afghan national security forces," he told the Commons.

In other words, more must die to protect the wisdom of politician's decision to send others to die in vain. There is no threat to the UK from the Taliban to justify the loss of another soldier's life. The UK's exit from the hell of Afghanistan is being delayed so that it can be spun as a victory for politicians. My oral question suggested that: "The role of our brave soldiers is to act as human shields for ministers' reputations. The danger to our soldiers has been prolonged by those on the frontbench who have the power to stop it." I recalled the end of the second world war when "politicians lied and soldiers died".

The Speaker asked me to make clear if I was saying a minister was lying. There was only one possible answer. My head was full of the deceptions of vain ministers since 2006, the avoidable 430 deaths and 2,000 soldiers who return home broken in mind and body.

"Yes, ministers had lied," I said. Exclusion was inescapable. Media attention to the message was magnified beyond my previous 1,000 comments on this issue in parliament. An unpremeditated angry declaration of a simple truth has struck a chord that is resonating powerfully with the public.

January 20, 2017

As we enter 2017, medical marijuana is now legal in a majority of US states, including conservative bastions such as Arkansas and Montana. Common sense is prevailing in Canada and Australia, too. Public support for cannabis legalisation has grown significantly in these countries. But the political establishment in Britain refuse to promote such sensible and courageous action.

February last year marked a watershed moment for many thousands of Australian citizens struggling to manage chronic conditions. It was the month the Turnbull Government introduced amendments to the Narcotic Drugs Act legalising access to safe supplies of medicinal cannabis. This law passed without fuss and established, in the words of then health minister Sussan Ley, a “pathway of legally-grown cannabis for the manufacture of suitable medicinal cannabis products in Australia”.

Brave politicians like Ley, in presenting overwhelming evidence to support these changes, have managed to lead public opinion. However, the new federal law has one fatal flaw – it does not decriminalise unregulated cannabis remains a law enforcement issue for individual states. In a recent poll in South Australia’s Advertiser, 83 percent of readers backed a further law which would allow the home growing of medicinal cannabis for strict medicinal purposes.

Elsewhere, the legalisation of cannabis was a flagship manifesto commitment of Justin Trudeau in 2015. He successfully led the Liberal Party into government with a stomping majority. The law will change this spring. However, like the Turnbull Government, Trudeau’s reluctance to decriminalise means many citizens have and will suffer in the meantime.

Demand for pain relief is not yet meeting the supply of; it is absurd that expensive and harmful pharmaceutical painkillers are liberally prescribed, while use of cannabis is harshly punished.

Where legalisation for medicinal purposes and decriminalisation go hand in hand, public attitudes have been proven to shift substantially. In the US, now polls suggest over half of American people support the legalisation of cannabis for both medicinal and recreational use. No wonder this is the case when states such as Colorado, which legalised cannabis for recreational use, have seen a drop in cannabis sales among locals despite a rise in stores selling the drug. Colorado high schools have seen cannabis usage drop below the national average, a welcome statistic given the dangers of cannabis for the young.

In Britain both public opinion, and political will, lag behind. Brave British parliamentarians haven’t quite been in the right place at the right time. Ex-Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker, Drugs Minister in the coalition government, broke ranks from his Tory colleagues and released a report calling for cannabis-based medicines to be legalised in the UK. But he resigned to defend his seat amidst dwindling popularity for his party, lost his seat the following May, and his report went unendorsed by his boss. Her name was Theresa May, and she is now prime minister. I got in touch with Norman Baker, one of parliament’s greatest campaigners on the issue, about the prospects of any loosening on prohibition for cannabis use or legalisation for medicinal use. He responded, swiftly and soberly: “Given Theresa's views, I think it most unlikely anything will change under her regime.”

While the evidence grows ever more compelling, the government stands silently still as people continue to needlessly suffer. The Adam Smith Institute and the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Drug Reform have produced persuasive reports to lobby government. What will it take for them to see sense?

January 18, 2017

Infrastructure in Wales post-Brexit: The need for a ‘Red, White and Green’ Solution

On 23rd June 854, 572 people in Wales chose to leave the European Union.

The risks and opportunities arising from Brexit come on top of already significant challenges facing Wales, such as its economic performance, demographic changes, the pace of technological development and climate change, to name but a few.

The next few years will be a challenge. They will require a clear vision for a post-Brexit Wales, a new approach on many key policies and the ability to unite people in common cause.

In this time of uncertainty, it would be easy to opt for the status quo. But the referendum result was more than just a vote to leave the EU, it was a vote for control over our decision-making processes, and for a better quality of life. In Wales, it was a call for Welsh solutions to Welsh problems. It is time for a Red, White and Green Brexit.

Wales and its relationship with the EU

In 2014, EU funding for Wales from CAP and European structural Funds totaled £658m. During this time, Wales’s net contribution to the EU budget was £414m. This means the estimated net benefit to Wales of EU membership was £245m, approximately 0.4% of Welsh GDP.

While a small percentage of GDP, Gerald Holtham has pointed out that EU money accounts for 20% of the Capital budget. This will therefore, have a huge impact on investment in infrastructure projects.

Examples of EU-funded projects included upgrading major roads such as the A465, tourism initiatives and training schemes. Wales’ education system also benefits from EU funding, with financial support from Horizon 2020 and Erasmus. This support could be worth in the order of £20m a year.

There are now concerns that certain projects may be delayed, or in fact not happen at all. The South Wales Metro is one such project now potentially in jeopardy.

A Red, White and Green post-Brexit economy.

Foreign-owned businesses account for nearly 30% of Wales Gross Value Added with around 500 businesses whose ownership is in other EU countries providing more than 59,000 jobs. Export to the EU from Wales’s accounts for more than £1b of business each quarter. Additionally, the National Assembly for Wales’s research service estimates that 200,000 jobs in Wales depend on exports to the EU. That is approximately 14% of the Welsh workforce. Despite calls to abolish corporation tax and for full global free trade, this would be the wrong step for Wales. A race to the bottom must be avoided, as should mass tax breaks for companies who otherwise help to fund the mass infrastructure investment necessary in Wales to help its economic situation. Wales should look to foster indigenous growth, create durable transition plans for vulnerable sectors including agriculture, steel, automotive and aviation and focus on public procurement and mass infrastructure development to further the Welsh economy.

Whatever plans Wales has for growth post-Brexit, it must ensure that any such growth is secure. More than half the increase in employment since 2008 has been in self-employment and in part-time work. One in five new jobs are temporary. Meanwhile living standards have fallen, with gross weekly earning £30 less than they were in 2008. Public investment in Wales would ensure secure, well paid, full-time jobs and end the scourge of discrimination, low pay and insecure work.

According to Wales Public Services 2025, Wales is likely to see a shortage of construction workers due to the restrictions on immigration and free movement from EU countries. Whilst this will undoubtedly have an impact upon the construction of civil works, it will also have a knock-on effect on home building. Coupled with the difficulties that housing providers will have in accessing construction materials from Europe, alongside higher costs, meaning there is likely to be an ever greater shortage of housing. Disadvantaging inward investment in Wales.

Agriculture is devolved to the National Assembly for Wales and as such the decisions made over agriculture in Wales, are usually made by Wales. However the powers over agriculture, which until now had been held by the EU with regards to Wales may now be treated differently. There are a number of reasons for this:

The powers model currently being used by the National Assembly for Wales

The current ‘conferred powers model’ ensures that the subject matter devolved to Wales is clearly stipulated in Schedule 7 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (GOWA). It means that although agriculture is devolved, certain aspects of agricultural life are not. For example fox hunting, scientific experimentation and import and export control are excepted matters, and as such not devolved for Wales. As such, any new powers which returned from the EU would not return to Wales under this power model.

The proposed ‘reserved powers model’ contained within the Wales Bill would make it more likely that powers once held by the EU over agriculture would return to Wales, as those powers are not expressly reserved by the UK Government. However, the EU is a reserved matter and as such it may be argued that as the repatriation of powers is a reserved matter then it is for the UK Government to decide who is to exercise the power.

The UK Parliament can still legislate for Wales

There is nothing stopping the UK Parliament from legislating in a devolved area such as agriculture. The convention is merely that the Assembly would consent to such a move.

Much is dependent on the Grand Repeal Bill. If the UK Government merely reaffirm EU law in an EU statute there will be very little legislative space for the Assembly to legislate on the repatriated powers.

Welsh Specific agricultural policy making

The Welsh Government’s rural affairs secretary, Lesley Griffiths has stated that leaving the EU presents an opportunity for ‘very welsh specific policies’ on farming and the environment.

George Eustice, a UK farming Minister, has said that there is a need to work out a UK wide framework for an agricultural policy. He stated ‘broadly’ Westminster would be in charge of the agriculture cash, with the Welsh Government given its share, yet he wouldn’t want to have ‘distorting subsidies in place that affected one area more than another’.

Repatriation of funding

Even if powers are to return to Wales, there is a chance that the connected funding may not be repatriated alongside the powers. This would be the worst case scenario. Another scenario is that the powers are devolved alongside some funding, yet the funding is insufficient. Often when new areas of competence are devolved to the National Assembly, the connected operating finance is devolved alongside it. However, the cost of establishing regulatory and management bodies which already have a UK equivalent are often not devolved. Meaning that the Welsh Government may get the money for subsidies, yet not the funds to establish the body which distribute the subsidies themselves.

There is also the question of whether the existing Barnett formula is an appropriate mechanism for fund distribution post Brexit. Currently Wales receives 115% of funding per head compare to the same person in England. The UK Government has promised to pay the same rate of subsidies until 2020, at which point the picture becomes somewhat less clear. If after that point, the UK Government funds Welsh agriculture at merely the Barnett rate it is unlikely that there will be sufficient funding to subsidise Welsh farms to the level experienced in the EU.

Jo Hunt and Rachel Minto, of Cardiff University’s Wales Governance Centre, have in fact said that:

‘Allocating post Brexit agricultural spending through the Treasury’s established and much criticised Barnett Formula, for example, would leave Wales significantly out of pocket, and challenge the viability and competiveness of Welsh farming’.

In 2014, £240m was given to Welsh Farmers in direct payments alone. Half made a loss, or would have done so that year, without those payments.

Welsh Funding Post Brexit more generally.

(Extract from Wales Public Services 2025, report on the implications of Brexit)

To illustrate the possible impacts of Brexit on Welsh public finances we have generated a range of scenarios. These scenarios consider three key variables:

What happens to the £13 billion the UK currently pays to the EU

How the UK Government would replace the £4.5 billion spent by the EU in the UK, including the £520 million spent in Wales

The impact of Brexit on the tax revenues of the UK government and any consequent impact on Welsh public finances.

In developing these scenarios we have used some assumptions. The first is that the EU would continue to provide Wales with structural funds after the current round which ends in 2020. While the funds are likely to change, Wales continues to be amongst the poorest parts of the EU and it is reasonable assumption, though by no means a certainty, that Wales will continue to receive support at similar levels. In considering the economic impacts we have drawn from the Treasury’s analysis. While this is contested by Leave campaigners, it is the most authoritative assessment available. It draws not only from HMT’s own analysis but also from projections by a range of other organisations including the accounting firms. Its assessments also reflect similar analysis by international organisations like the OECD.

However, we fully recognise that there are considerable uncertainties and some economists, notably Professor Patrick Mindford, have produced models showing economic benefits arising from Brexit. Before getting into the scenarios we need to deal with the key issue of the funding formula used to allocate the £13 billion ‘recouped’ from Europe. The default position would be for the funding to reach Wales through the block grant, via the Barnett formula.

The Barnett formula is used to allocate increases (or decreases) in spending across the four nations of the UK based on spending decisions for England. The Barnett formula does not set the underlying baseline of spending, just annual changes. Under the Barnett formula, any increase in funding is applied equally across the four nations. So, for example, if the UK Government decided to use money recouped from its EU contribution to raise spending on agriculture in England by £10 per head there would be a £10 per head rise in the block grants allocated to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Wales could lose out in this scenario because the Barnett formula would allocate the money equally, whereas the EU funding was previously unequally allocated in Wales’ favour. The alternative would be a one off deal that treats the EU funding as an exceptional re-adjustment that alters the baselines rather than allocating it via the Barnett formula.

Scenario 1: Barnett highly optimistic scenario

This scenario assumes that the UK Government has not made an agreement with the EU and has defaulted to a WTO relationship. What happens to the £13 billion EU contributions? Because there is no agreement, the UK has to make no contribution to the EU in a post Brexit agreement. In this optimistic scenario, the UK Government uses its share of the £13 billion recouped from Europe entirely for purposes that are devolved: so increasing spending on areas including agriculture, regional development, health and 12 education but not areas like defence and policing. Through the Barnett formula, Wales would get around £740 million. We have assumed no negative economic impact. The Treasury’s projections of a £45 million reduction in tax have not come about. So is Wales better off? In this most positive of scenarios, Wales would do better from Brexit by around £220 million.

Scenario 2: Barnett optimistic but plausible scenario

In this scenario, the UK Government strikes a post Brexit deal to stay in the EEA. What happens to the £13 billion EU contribution? In our scenario, under the terms of the agreement to join the EEA the UK contributes around £4 billion (just under half of the net contribution in 2015). This leaves around £9 billion. The UK Government spends £4.0 billion in areas matching existing EU spending (for example agriculture, regional development). This results in Wales getting around £230 million. The UK Government negotiates to retain access to funding for innovation and Higher Education, worth £20 million. What happens to the UK public finances? The Treasury predicts a loss of £20 billion. So the remaining funding recouped from the EU contribution is completely subsumed by the loss of revenue. To bridge the funding gap, the UK government makes cuts to spending, including £5 billion in devolved areas. That would result in a cut to the Welsh budget of £285 million. Is Wales better off? In this scenario, Wales is down by around £535 million.

Scenario 3: Barnett pessimistic but plausible scenario

In this scenario, the UK Government negotiates a bilateral arrangement with the EU. What happens to the £13 billion EU contribution? In our scenario, the EU plays hard ball to make the UK pay heavily to opt out of the principle of free movement with a contribution of £8.5 billion a year, matching its current net contribution. Due to funding pressures, the UK Government makes available a pot of just £1 billion for agricultural payments in England and does not replace other EU funding. That means just £60 million for Wales. What happens to the UK public finances? The remainder of the reclaimed EU contribution is more than offset by the £36 billion loss of tax receipts as predicted by HM Treasury. To help repair the public finances, alongside tax rises and other cuts the UK Government makes £7 billion cuts to devolved areas, including health, local government and education. That results in a cut of £400 million for Wales. Is Wales better off? Wales is worst off to the tune of £860 million.

Scenario 4: Re-adjust baseline optimistic but plausible scenario

This is a variation on scenario 2, which involves the UK entering the EEA and making a £4 billion contribution. The UK Government agrees with the devolved countries to ensure that the £4.5 billion spent by the EU across the UK is fully protected through an adjustment to each country’s underlying baseline. That is, the £4.5 billion is not allocated through the formula but simply replaces existing EU funding. This means Wales starts from a position of keeping the £520 million currently spent with no net loss 13 or gain. The remaining funding recouped is completely subsumed by the £20 billion loss of tax, as predicted by HM Treasury. To bridge this gap, the UK government makes cuts to spending, including £5 billion in devolved areas. That would result in a cut to the Welsh budget of £285 million. In this scenario, Wales is £285 million worse off.

Scenario 5: Re-adjust baseline pessimistic but plausible scenario

This is a variation on scenario 4 in which the UK Government negotiates a bilateral arrangement with the EU and pays around £8.5 billion a year. In this scenario, the UK Government agrees to adjust the baselines, but due to changing economic circumstances will only provide half of the funding (a total of £2.25 billion), meaning, Wales gets £260 million. The remaining funding is more than offset by the £36 billion loss of tax receipts as predicted by HM Treasury. To help repair the public finances, the UK Government makes £7 billion cuts to devolved areas, including health, local government and education. That results in a cut of £400 million for Wales. Wales is worse off by £660 million.

January 17, 2017

At a meeting of the Home Affairs Committee 11th February 2014 I raised the issue of the kidnap of Abdel Hakim Belhadj. The former head of GCHQ was not helpful in his replies. The issue is again in the news with an allegation against Jack Straw that he denies. It's a shame that Sir David Ormond was not more forthcoming in 2014.

Q631Paul Flynn:In 2004, Mr Abdel Hakim Belhadj, with his pregnant wife, was abducted from Bangkok Airport, flown to Gaddafi’s Libya and tortured. In 2005, Jack Straw denied that the British Government had any involvement in renditions. In 2011, Human Rights Watch discovered documents and published them which named the British MI6 agent who they claim had boasted about this abduction, and Jack Straw has subsequently said that he was advised by MI6 on this. No one would have the knowledge of this and the truth on this without Human Rights Watch. Many other matters we would not have the truth of if it was not for whistleblowers like Edward Snowden. Do you not agree that we do need the whistleblowers, and they do convey to the public the truth of what is going on, rather than listen gullibly as we are told-as I have been and as the Chairman has been-that there was no involvement with extraordinary rendition. We were lied to. Do we not need whistleblowers?

Professor Sir David Omand:Let me say that a true whistleblower, in accepted international convention, has to exhaust his remedies. For example, Mr Snowden could have gone to his employers-I understand why he would not do that; I would not press that point. He could have gone to the inspector general, the independent figure of his organisation. I would not press that point either. He could have gone to Congress. Just imagine if Mr Snowden-flanked perhaps by the editor ofTheGuardianand the editor ofTheNew York Times-had walked into the Congressional Oversight Committee and said, "The White House has kept from you and the Executive have kept from you knowledge of a massive programme of collecting data on American citizens." There would have been a huge political stink. I am quite sure President Obama would have been forced to issue the sort of statement that he issued a few weeks ago.

Paul Flynn:He has.

Professor Sir David Omand:Mr Snowden would have achieved his objective and he would not have had to steal 58,000 British top-secret documents or 1.7 million-

Paul Flynn:There is very little time, so can I just make two points?

Professor Sir David Omand-he did not do that, so in my book he is not a whistleblower.

Q632Paul Flynn:Monsieur Dick Marty, who is a very distinguished Swiss MP, who was described by a Foreign Secretary here to me as being a madman-he was not; I know him very well. He was the person who very bravely took up this issue in Europe. Successive British politicians denied what was going on. The question is: do we not have to rely on the whistleblowers, on the Dick Martys, on the Human Rights Watch, to get the truth? Otherwise we live in ignorance, as politicians and the public. Of course they supply this service to us, surely.

Professor Sir David Omand:I believe in the free press. Under no circumstances will I want to muzzle the press. If they can perform a public service, let them do that. In a well-regulated democracy, you don’t have to rely on the media.

Also at same meeting

Paul Flynn:I want to ask about two matters in my time in Parliament, the first of which is the decision to join the war in Iraq in 2003, which the security services and the Intelligence Committee were cheerleaders for and supporters of. We now know that that decision meant the loss of 179 British lives. Those lives were sacrificed in the cause of trying to protect the United Kingdom from attacks from non-existent weapons of mass destruction. Do you think that there has been some improvement now and that the loss of confidence in the Committee and the security services from that event-and another one I will mention in a moment-has been repaired in some way?

Professor Sir David Omand: Time has healed to some extent, but it was a very significant blow to the credibility of the intelligence community and we fully accept that there were significant matters that we got wrong.

I think you mentioned the Security Service in your question. That may have been a reference to the Secret Intelligence Service. I think Dame Manningham-Buller gave evidence to the Chilcot Committee-as I did-pointing out that in our joint Intelligence Committee reports we had indeed made clear that the consequence of intervention in Iraq would be an increase in radicalisation domestically.

Q592Paul Flynn:You accepted the likely existence of weapons of mass destruction, did you not?

Professor Sir David Omand: Yes.

Paul Flynn:And you were wrong.

Professor Sir David Omand: Yes. Well, we believe we were wrong.

Q593Paul Flynn:Just another matter, if I can briefly go into it. A similar, but even worse decision-which a Conservative Member asked for an inquiry into yesterday-was that in 2006, there was debate in the House on the wisdom of an incursion into Helmand Province, where at that time only two British soldiers had died in combat. The justification for going in-again, supported by the cheerleaders on the Security Committee-was that we would be there for a maximum of three years, end the growing of heroin, which is now at a record level, and come out in the hope that not a shot would be fired. It was compared in the debate in the Commons as equivalent to the charge of the light brigade. The person who did that understated the situation because the numbers of British casualties-lives that have been lost in Helmand-are three times the numbers lost in the charge of the light brigade. When we look back at the record of the security services and the Intelligence Committee, was this not a terrible mistake to support Government at that time? Should they not have been providing a check on the Government?

Chair:Thank you, Mr Flynn. A brief answer, because we need to move on.

Professor Sir David Omand: We should look forward to the publication of the official history of the Joint Intelligence Committee, which at the moment is being written by one of my colleagues at King’s College. I hope that will be published within a few months, and that will perhaps set the record straight about the overall balance between getting things right and getting things wrong.

Q594Paul Flynn:Would you answer the question?

Professor Sir David Omand: I had left Government service by then. I do not think I have any way in which I can help.

Q595Paul Flynn:Has there been an improvement that should increase public trust in the intelligence services after these two calamities?

Professor Sir David Omand: I would simply point to the number of terrorist plots-directly relevant to the inquiry you are engaged in here-which have been frustrated by the activities of the intelligence services, and we are all safer because of it.

January 14, 2017

Tory Toll junkies are hooked on the Highway Robbery that forces local people into paying double taxation. While the Severn Bridges were in private hands the deal to pay tolls was resented but tolerated. This year or in early 2018, the bridges will become public property like the rest of the motorway system. They should be maintained and financed in the same way as all other public roads.

For 52 years, we have paid twice. First through our taxes for the roads system. Secondly through the toll payments. The Government want to continue to milk the cash cow of tolls. There is an overwhelming case for abolishing the tolls altogether. At a stroke an injustice would end and the expense and psychological barrier to accessing Wales would be gone.

£billions of our taxes are paid to build, run and maintains the UK's road system. The Severn Bridges costs and debts are a national responsibilities when they become public property. Wales has a history of attacking unjust tolls by the Hosts of Rebecca. It's time the spirit of the 1839 was aroused again.

At the Welsh Affairs Select Committee before Christmas, the Secretary of State spreads some more darkness on the vexed questions of the future of Severn Bridges Toll, when 50% is not 50% and a 'guarantee' is not guaranteed.

Alun Cairns: I would also remind you that even when the bridge comes back into public ownership there will still be a significant debt on the bridge that will need to be repaid. Maintenance of the bridge will be ongoing. This is the sort of thing that the consultation will be looking at and I have absolutely no doubt that you and the Committee will want to express a view when we go out to consultation.

Q90 Chair: This cut that has been promised at 50%—50% on the tolls as they are in 2018 but still 50%—is absolutely guaranteed, isn’t it?

Alun Cairns: That is the Government proposal but there is a consultation going on to how that can be achieved.

Q91 Chair: So it is not quite guaranteed?

Alun Cairns: The announcement has been made in Budget 2015, I think it was, or 2014, and it is something that is Government policy. There will be a consultation that talks about how we can—

Q93 Paul Flynn: Severn Bridge tolls started four years before you were born, Secretary of State. Do you expect them to continue when you reach retirement age?

Alun Cairns: Clearly I would hope, Mr Flynn, that you would accept that the 50% reduction that is proposed, subject to a consultation and so on, is a welcome step. The debt will still need to be repaid and there is also the ongoing maintenance. There is a division across the bridges and links across estuaries that generally a charge—

Q94 Paul Flynn: There was a fascinating core finding that said that 50% of the population didn’t understand what 50% means. You have been quoted as saying that the toll should be £3.70. How is that 50% of £6.70?

Alun Cairns: I was talking about of that order and I talked about it by the time the bridge comes into public ownership for which there will be an inflationary fee. There is an increase that goes up in January, as a result of the Act that ties the increases with the retail price index, but I would ask, Mr Flynn, please wait for the consultation to come out and that is an opportunity to engage further on the detail that we include within the consultation.

Q95 Paul Flynn: In my view, the people of Wales are being ripped off by having one of the few stretches of motorway, which the Severn Bridges are, tolled and this has gone on for all these years now and because of the deals done a long time ago by a previous generation. There seems to be absolutely no reason why this shouldn’t become a national responsibility and the psychological barrier to south Wales, which is very damaging, could be removed.

Alun Cairns: I am governed by the Act of Parliament and the Act of Parliament will have struck a deal with the Severn Bridge company. We have an obligation in order to deliver that but I would hope that reducing the tolls by half is seen as a very positive step, although there will be a debt that remains outstanding. It demonstrates the scale of the project. We will be going out to consultation very shortly and that is an opportune time to respond directly to the questions that are included, such as what is the prospect of free flow traffic and the impact of that. There will be costs to administer that in itself, by the way.

January 13, 2017

On Monday, my Private Members Bill will be introduced, seeking to extend the Welsh system of deemed consent for organ donation to England.

The Bill has received cross-party support from English, Scottish and Northern Irish MPs eager to see the system implemented. The Welsh Soft opt out scheme has been responsible for the saving of 39 lives. An English equivalent is long overdue.

Below is a copy of the EDM I have tabled, a list of the Bills supporters as well as information on the effect of the scheme in Wales.

EDM 852

Organ Donation Presumed Consent

This House congratulates the Welsh Government on the introduction of presumed consent for organ donation in Wales; notes that 39 lives have been saved in the past year; is concerned that the UK has one of the lowest rates of organ donation consent in Europe; notes the UK target to increase organ donation consent rates to 80% by 2020; further notes the model successes of presumed consent in Wales which could be replicated across the UK to increase numbers of organs available for donation.

Those who have agreed to sponsor the Bill are as follows:

Paul Blomfield

Michael Fabricant

Kerry McCarthy

Kate Green

Mike Wood

Siobhain McDonagh

Mark Durkan

Dr Philippa Whitford

Danny Kinahan

Dan Jarvis

Yvonne Fovargue

Helen Hayes

Kelvin Hopkins

Ronnie Cowan

In England, in order to donate your organs, you must ‘opt in’. That is you must take the positive step to state that upon your death, you would like to donate your organs to another. In Wales, following the Human Transplantation (Wales) Act 2013, the system is now different. People living in Wales now have three choices:

If you want to be a donor, you can either register to be a donor (opt in) on the NHS Organ Donor Register or do nothing

If you do nothing, we will regard you as having no objection to donating your organs. This is called deemed consent.

If you do not want to be a donor, you can register not to be a donor (opt out) on the NHS Organ Donor Register

It is important to note that this law does not mean that people who feel strongly about not donating must now do so. In fact, the opposite is true. If you feel strongly about not donating your organs you can ‘opt out’ of the system, or appoint a representative to decide this on your behalf when you die.

This Bill would reconcile the position in England, with that of Wales.

Why did Wales change the law?

In 2014-15, 14 people died in Wales while waiting for a transplant.

Organ Donation is rare. Less than 1% of people in Wales die in a way that allows organ donation to take place. In 2014 31,439 people died in Wales. Around 250 of these died in a way that would have allowed them to become a potential organ donor. In 2014/15 only 72 people became organ donors.

Another reason for the shortage is that many families say no to organ donation if they don’t know if their loved one wanted to donate.

The new system will be clearer for everyone. If family members are approached about organ donation, they will know that their loved could have opted out but chose not to.[1]

The Law in Wales and its effects

Wales moved to a soft ‘opt-out’ system for organ donation on 1 December 2015.

9 out of 10 people support organ donation, but only 3 out of 10 people in Wales had put their names on the Organ Donor Register. Under the soft opt out system, if you have not registered a clear organ donation decision (opt-in or opt-out), you will be treated as having no objection to being an organ donor. This is called ‘deemed consent'.

It is called a soft opt-out system because your family will always be involved in all discussions about donation. They will need to be present to answer questions about your health, lifestyle and where you lived. They could also say if they knew you did not want to be an organ donor. If your family or appointed representatives cannot be contacted, donation will not proceed.

Deemed consent means that if you do not register a clear decision either to be an organ donor (opt in) or not to be a donor (opt out), you will be treated as having no objection to being a donor. Deemed consent applies to people over the age of 18 who live and die in Wales. Deemed consent does not apply to living donation. Deemed consent only applies to people over the age of 18. When children reach a point that they can understand organ donation they can record their decision on the register or appoint someone to make organ donation decisions on their behalf if they wish to do so. Until they can understand organ donation, the decision to donate, or not donate, falls to a child's parents or guardians. Parents and guardians can register a decision on behalf of their children if the child is unable to understand organ donation.

The Statistics surrounding organ donation

There are presently 6,599 people waiting on the organ donation waiting list in the United Kingdom. In 2015/16, the figure was 6,463. Yet in 2015/16, there were only 4,605 organ transplants in the UK.[2] Approximately, 71.3%.

In Wales during the same period there were 192 patients on the organ donation waiting list, yet 214 organ transplants. That is 111%.

The figures for Wales prior to the ‘opt out’ system showed that 220 patients were on the active organ transplant waiting lists, yet only 173 organ transplants took place. 78.6% of necessary donations.[3] Although this was still above the UK average, the rise in just one year, as a result of the new law is remarkable.

For context, in England for the same period there were 5,567 patients on the active list, yet only 3,808 organ transplants took place.[4] That is 68%.

Although numbers of donors naturally fluctuate year on year, the Welsh Government says it is confident that earlier hopes of a 25% increase in the number of donors will be reached in future. According to the Welsh Government, only 6% have ‘opted out’ since the changes in the law took effect.

The links above provide information from sources within all of the worlds’ six major religions. Making a donation is an individual’s choice. But it can be seen differently even in the same religious groups. If you have any doubt, get guidance from a senior teacher in your community.

The proposed soft opt out system would not be contradictory to religion or individual choice, as the system allows you to opt out without giving a reason. Your individual and religious freedoms are protected by your personal ability to opt out of the system.

The real difference to everyday life

Cabinet Secretary for Health in the Welsh Government has said "There's a much greater awareness of organ donation itself. More people are having those conversations with their loved ones about whether they want to opt in or to simply leave it as a point of deemed consent. It makes a real difference then to have that conversation at that point in time when it becomes a possibility and makes it much easier for health staff too."

Consultant Dr Chris Hingston, clinical lead for organ donation at University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff, said:

"We've seen a big impact at the bedside in terms of families approaching us to ask about organ donation, but equally families when we asked them if their loved ones wished to become a donor actually know the wishes. Even if that's not to become a donor, so they're refusing, but they're confident that that's the right decision for their loved ones. As a clinician that's all I ever wanted - that there wasn't a grey area where there's indecision and difficulty for families."

Real life change

Bill, 67, was admitted to the critical care unit at the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff after suffering a stroke and a fall. His daughter Karen said: "Dad had talked about organ donation.

"It's the last serious conversation that we'd had, not knowing that in a few weeks time, that was going to have to happen. It was his decision and I wasn't going to challenge it because it was his decision. I think I would have coped with it a lot worse if I hadn't have had the transplant to focus on. It's like he still had a job to do, even though he couldn't do anything, he was still doing something. He was looking after those organs before they could be given to somebody else. It's made losing him easier because it's like something good has come out of it, and I can't think of any other circumstance when someone dies that something good comes out of it. It's quite a negative final thing, whereas, for dad, it still doesn't feel final because parts of him are living on in someone else. Nothing's going to make up for losing my dad. But it makes it a little bit easier to swallow knowing that he's gone on to help other people. He's always been my hero, even more so now."

In 1839-43, Crossed dressed "Hosts of Rebecca", men dressed as women, stormed the toll gates imposed on Welsh roads by alien road owners. In 1703 Gweledigaethau y Bardd Cwsc (Visions of a Sleeping Poet) by Ellis Wynne was published revealing his horror visions of the future. Here is one of the New Visions of a Dreaming Politician.

-Genesis 24:60 'And they blessed Rebecca and said unto her, Thou art our sister, be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed possess the gate of those which hate them'.

HUCKSTER REBECCA CAIRNS: ‘Throw off your chains, Welsh People. I will liberate you from highway robbery by private bridge owners. I will give you the PEOPLES SEVERN BRIDGES’.

GULLIBLE TORY MOB: ‘Hooray’.

HRC: ‘I will charge you, not £6.70..........’.

GTM: ‘OOOOO!’

HRC: ‘Nor £5.70. or £4.70...... NO. NO. I will cut it by 50% to £3.70’.

GTM: (Hysterical cheering)

ONE SMALL VOICE: ‘That’s not a 50%’ cut.

HRC: ‘….Errr. Err. No. I will go further and cut it to £3.00’

GTM: (Hysteria renewed-louder)

HRC. ‘Better still… How about £1.50…’

GTM: (Stunned into silent ecstasy)

HRC ‘….bothways’

GTM: 'Huh?'

OSV. ‘That’s still £3.00 for the People’s Bridges. Shouldn't they be free like the rest of the motorways?

January 10, 2017

A one-size-fits–all Brexit designed to suit the needs of the whole UK would seriously damage Wales. Wales is different to England. A rupture from the single market could be ruinous because Welsh industry is heavily dependent on European exports. Present farm subsidies must no longer be based on the well-being of millionaire English farmers and farm businesses. The subsidies would achieve far more and be better value if they are redesigned to give essential help to small Welsh farmers.

A re-think is essential on whether 40% of any Brexit funds should be distributed to farming while there is a strong case for support to Welsh shortfalls in heavy industries and in the NHS. The Welsh steel industry would be in peril unless its future can be protected.

January 06, 2017

At the the Welsh Affairs Select Committee, the Secretary of State spreads some more darkness on the vexed questions of the future of Severn Bridges Toll, when 50% is not 50% and a 'guarantee' is not guaranteed.

Alun Cairns: I would also remind you that even when the bridge comes back into public ownership there will still be a significant debt on the bridge that will need to be repaid. Maintenance of the bridge will be ongoing. This is the sort of thing that the consultation will be looking at and I have absolutely no doubt that you and the Committee will want to express a view when we go out to consultation.

Q90 Chair: This cut that has been promised at 50%—50% on the tolls as they are in 2018 but still 50%—is absolutely guaranteed, isn’t it?

Alun Cairns: That is the Government proposal but there is a consultation going on to how that can be achieved.

Q91 Chair: So it is not quite guaranteed?

Alun Cairns: The announcement has been made in Budget 2015, I think it was, or 2014, and it is something that is Government policy. There will be a consultation that talks about how we can—

Q93 Paul Flynn: Severn Bridge tolls started four years before you were born, Secretary of State. Do you expect them to continue when you reach retirement age?

Alun Cairns: Clearly I would hope, Mr Flynn, that you would accept that the 50% reduction that is proposed, subject to a consultation and so on, is a welcome step. The debt will still need to be repaid and there is also the ongoing maintenance. There is a division across the bridges and links across estuaries that generally a charge—

Q94 Paul Flynn: There was a fascinating core finding that said that 50% of the population didn’t understand what 50% means. You have been quoted as saying that the toll should be £3.70. How is that 50% of £6.70?

Alun Cairns: I was talking about of that order and I talked about it by the time the bridge comes into public ownership for which there will be an inflationary fee. There is an increase that goes up in January, as a result of the Act that ties the increases with the retail price index, but I would ask, Mr Flynn, please wait for the consultation to come out and that is an opportunity to engage further on the detail that we include within the consultation.

Q95 Paul Flynn: In my view, the people of Wales are being ripped off by having one of the few stretches of motorway, which the Severn Bridges are, tolled and this has gone on for all these years now and because of the deals done a long time ago by a previous generation. There seems to be absolutely no reason why this shouldn’t become a national responsibility and the psychological barrier to south Wales, which is very damaging, could be removed.

Alun Cairns: I am governed by the Act of Parliament and the Act of Parliament will have struck a deal with the Severn Bridge company. We have an obligation in order to deliver that but I would hope that reducing the tolls by half is seen as a very positive step, although there will be a debt that remains outstanding. It demonstrates the scale of the project. We will be going out to consultation very shortly and that is an opportune time to respond directly to the questions that are included, such as what is the prospect of free flow traffic and the impact of that. There will be costs to administer that in itself, by the way.